User blog:TheGrudge154/My worries about How To Train Your Dragon 3
Torn Loyalties? Like almost every user on here and most watchers of the movies, I adore How To Train Your Dragon. I've been with the movie franchise since soon after it was released, I've gotten almost every bit of media I can get my hands on and there are countless bits of Toothless merch scattered around my room. Having recently been on a binge watching all of the movies and show again, I've been wondering how they can finish off this series appropriately given all of the events that have led up to the conclusion. Waiting until 2018 is not going to be easy, even less so with the little trickles of news we get from interviews and rumours. But lately, with everything I've been reading that has been said by DeBlois and DreamWorks, I'm a little concerned about How To Train Your Dragon 3. Based on what we know is going to be definitely inclued in'' Dragon 3'', we can establish the following: *The film will establish the first two as essentially 'flashbacks' with the third being told from Hiccup's perspective of reflecting on a time that dragons filled the world, basically revealing that the dragons will have disappeared in some way. *The film will have a greater emphasis on Toothless and the insight that dragons have into the world. *The film will act as the culmination of Hiccup's coming of age. *Both Hiccup and Toothless will both be "trying to do what's right for their kind" after becoming chief and Alpha which will eventually lead to a conclusion where "Hiccup is able to stand on his own". http://collider.com/how-to-train-your-dragon-3-plot-dean-deblois/ http://collider.com/how-to-train-your-dragon-3-story-spinoffs/#more-366119 Now I think is a bold and good move to include the aspect of the dragons disappearing. However it's done, such a big event will only emphasise the bigger focus on dramatic storytelling that we got in Dragon 2 whilst also providing a good connection back to the original book series, despite how the books and films have taken on massively different storylines. Additional focus on Toothless is also more than welcome given how the second film leaned more towards human interaction with Hiccup, Valka and the others, even though we did get some great moments with Hiccup and Toothless together as always (plus, Toothless always needs screentime to keep being the adorable little crap he is). However, it's the last two points that have started to worry me about how DreamWorks is planning to end the franchise and if they do it the way I think they will, then I will come out of that film somewhat disappointed. From what I am going to speculate from the little information we have right now, the main 'conflict' of Dragon 3 is going to be about torn loyalties. It's a common element that has appeared in numerous other media to the point it has become a trope. Two characters, usually good friends, are forced to confront a situation where they must end up solving the situation but at the loss of their continued companionship. It usually ends in the characters vowing to remain connected to one another but ultimately seperating for the good of their people (or dragons in this case). As both Hiccup and Toothless have become the leaders of their respective groups, the pair of them are most likely going to have to make choices about whether to be more loyal to their friendship or the ones that they're supposed to be in charge of caring for. Throw Drago returning into the mix and you have a good cooking pot for some good, if not a little tropey, drama. In most instances, the use of this element wouldn't be a problem. To me, however, this conclusion is ultimately wrong for Dragon 3 as it goes against everything we have seen between the pair in the films. Themes: Friendship VS Duty Whilst I agree that Hiccup's maturity has been one of the bigger overarching themes throughout all that he does, I do not agree with some conclusions that it is the main theme the series is based around. To me, How To Train Your Dragon has been a series which has a main theme of friendship and the celebration of being unique. Two characters that are unique amongst their respective groups and bond in the way that Hiccup and Toothless do has always been the reason why I love these films. The emphasis throughout all of their adventures has been the companionship that they both have shared and how it has helped them to conquer any obstacle in their path. It's the entire main reason why Drago is beaten in Dragon 2. He doesn't understand how to earn a dragon's loyalty properly and is promptly defeated by the power of that bond. In the first film, which is primarily focused on Hiccup and Toothless' growing friendship in the face of their species' war with each other, their urge to protect one another comes above all else in their actions throughout the story. Hiccup continues to lead a stressful and potentially dangerous double life to keep his dragon a secret for fear that the others will kill him. Toothless in turn is willing to risk his anonymity and own life to save Hiccup when the arena fight goes wrong, actually crawling his way out of the cove in desperation to do so. Hiccup's decision to lead the dragon assault to the Red Death is almost entirely motivated by rescuing Toothless. Toothless in turn helps him to stop this threat to the Vikings as a team. When the Red Death is destroyed, Toothless' first instinct is to save Hiccup rather than himself, diving into the flames of the queen's exploding body without hesitation. And then the pair of them are able to realise that they have become symbolically equal by losing a part of themselves. Perhaps the biggest revelation of Toothless' devotion to Hiccup in this time frame is in Gift Of The Night Fury where he shows he would rather fly with Hiccup at his side than be independant and with other dragons. In the second film, Toothless is still shown to be more concerned about Hiccup than himself, wrapping Hiccup up during their crash landing to protect him from harm without a second thought. Toothless is worried that Hiccup is upset with Stoick, whereas Hiccup is more concerned about what could happen to Toothless by promising he won't let anything happen to him. Later, Hiccup 's sheer panic when he is snatched from Toothless' back by Valka's dragons show he is way more concerned about what happens to his Night Fury than where he is being taken and what awaits for him. When Toothless kills Stoick under the control of the Alpha, the fact that Hiccup is so upset with him enough to force him away seems to hurt Toothless more than anything else in the situation and it is only later thanks to Hiccup's compassion that Toothless is able to break free from that control. Their trust even reaches a point where Toothless is willing to be blinded and let Hiccup be his eyes. I think the most blatant example of their bond coming above anything else in the film is after they are both frozen. Toothless' sole motivation for challenging the Alpha isn't for the good of the other dragons or realising the potential of becoming a leader, it's because he is angry that Hiccup was almost killed. Valka says so herself, his challenge is purely to protect his human. Even when the battle is said and done and Toothless is 'crowned' the Alpha by the other dragons, Toothless' first instinct after this is immediately to refocus his attention back on Hiccup. In both film's climaxes, it hasn't been Hiccup's new sense of understanding with age or rising to the challenges of being a leader that has ultimately beaten the final conflict, although those themes have been a part of his maturity in order to deal with it. It has always been this young man and his dragon working together as one. Though the films have made Hiccup become more mature and a leader through realising his mistakes and directing the other riders, it has been his and Toothless' friendship that has driven that maturity forward. They protect each other more than anything else, there is never another option to them. And it's because of this unquestionable devotion to one another that I ultimately feel this 'torn loyalties' approach for Dragon 3 ultimately won't fit if DreamWorks decides to go for it. Objections My first objection is the proposed idea by DeBlois that Hiccup is yet to be able to stand on his own by Dragon 3 and that the third film will finally show him being able to do that. Whilst he does have the challenges of being a good chief for Berk, especially given the legacy of his father, Hiccup has shown numerous times to be perfectly capable of protecting himself and adapting to the situation on his own. In both the TV series and films, Hiccups is forced to confront a lot of situations without Toothless and support from his friends and family, situations that he often suceeds in handling. He escapes imprisonment multiple times, he improvises at dealing with dangerous enemies without the help of dragons and he is able to use his own knowledge to successfully pacify Valka's dragons and bring Toothless back from the Alpha's control. Perhaps most importantly of all is Hiccup's way of showing that you don't have to do things alone all the time. Whilst the series does show the importantance of being able to deal with situations by yourself, I'm unsure of the reasoning as to why Hiccup will now have to be able to stand alone all the time. It doesn't fit his character. In the TV series especially, Hiccup seems most pleased when he is working in a team with the other riders, he has had to make difficult choices for his village whilst also thinking of a solution that is best for the dragons and the series as a whole shows that he always performs at his best when riding Toothless. Even at the end of Dragon 2, Hiccup is able to help with the rebuilding of the village as chief whilst also using his friendship with Toothless to help him out, as brief as that moment is given how close to the credits it is. This makes it hard for me to think of a situation where Hiccup would be forced to choose between the Vikings and Toothless, which is a likely possibility as to what could happen in Dragon 3 given DeBlois' wording. He's proven he can focus his attention on both before, why not here? My second objection is similar, but focused around Toothless' behaviour. Again, I can't think of any possible situation that would force Toothless to confront the possibility of being without Hiccup. Setting aside the obvious fact that he is unable to fly with Hiccup's help, Toothless has shown multiple times he would rather be with Hiccup over anything else. First, you have the idea of the Night Furies being a possible factor. The series tries to toy with the idea that Toothless longs to be with others of his own kind and yet it never is strictly true in any of these instances. In Gift Of The Night Fury, Toothless wants to leave the island to find Hiccup's helmet, not to join the other dragons and outright refuses to fly on his own using the automatic tail-fin as a result. In the TV series with the fake Isle of Night, Toothless doesn't show much of an interest in the prospect of other Night Furies until they're almost there and it turns out to be a trap anyway. By the end of that adventure, he also agrees with Hiccup that there's nothing wrong in being one of a kind (a theme the films celebrate). Dragon 2 re-emphasises this when Toothless doesn't give much back but a 'Hm?' to Hiccup's idea that there might be another Night Fury out there. Even when Valka mentions that Toothless could be the last of his kind, the Night Fury seems way more concerned about getting scratches than pining for a dragon companion at the mention of him being alone. Secondly, there is still the case of Toothless' unwavering devotion to Hiccup against the idea that he now has to 'focus' on caring for the other dragons. Toothless has already shown himself to be a peacekeeper between the other dragons during the TV series and acts as a natural leader for them as well. He has also shown to be a great defender of the dragons in his battles against the Red Death, Drago and even the Vikings before the first film. But Toothless has been able to do all of this without sacrificing his bond with Hiccup in the process. As mentioned before, the entire reason that Toothless challenges the Bewilderbeast is to protect Hiccup. That focus of keeping Hiccup safe never stops in his mind. Just like Hiccup, there isn't a need to make Toothless 'choose' between one or the other because he's shown he can focus on the wellbeing of both just like his rider. Their combined maturity as a team allows them to do it. Based on what we know so far, to force on a 'choice' between loyalties when both Hiccup and Toothless have proven they can both stand on their own and protect their own kind whilst keeping their friendship intact just comes across as artificial, a problem for the sake of needing a problem. In fact, if there's one thing I can say that Dragon 2 may have done wrong on its story is the fact that the ultimate idea of Hiccup becoming a leader to the village and Toothless a leader for the dragons may have come a film too early. If this idea of them becoming leaders was the eventual conclusion of the third film, I wouldn't have a problem with the idea of torn loyalties coming into play. But with two films and nearly 3 seasons of TV series done, it all goes against this idea. Hiccup and Toothless have already matured to the point of being able to do things both together and independently for the good of their respective tribes and I fear that Dragon 3 may run into the problem of coming across as nearly cliche in its conclusion if it tries to force in a conflict of loyalty. If the disappearance of the dragons is related to Hiccup and Toothless potentially having to part ways (and DeBlois' words seem to hint that this may be the case), it needs to be done in a better way than them choosing to do so for their kind's benefit. Simply put, they would never abandon each other by choice. Alternative Solutions The best way to make this work is to tie this chance of seperation into an event beyond both Hiccup and Toothless' control. It cannot be a thing the either of the two has to or wants to accept because it goes against what they have done for each other in the past. It also cannot be something they must debate over in their minds because there is a never a debate about what matters most to them. In other words,' it can't be a "I don't like it, but this is best for both of us and everyone else" situation. ' In my mind, this leads to a potentially daring and heartbreaking possibility, but one that is perfectly within reason after the decision to maim the main character in the first film and kill a major one in the second. But I'll keep that to myself in case anyone wants to hear it. TLDR: Based on confirmed details of the plot of How To Train Your Dragon 3, Hiccup and Toothless will be forced to choose between the greater good of their people or their friendship. Their actions throughout the series do not fit this idea thanks to their extreme loyalty, leadership skills and ability to stand alone as shown throughout all of the films and TV series. I do not believe using this approach would be a good way to end the series. Am I being crazy? Am I just overthinking? Anyone else have any thoughts as to how this could be done in a satisfying way? Category:Blog posts Category:Blog posts